Considered
and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Lansing, Judge; and Collins, Judge.*

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

LANSING, Judge

Justin
Akkerman challenges the district court’s decision sustaining the revocation of
his driver’s license. Akkerman argues
that he was illegally seized when a police officer handcuffed him after
stopping his all-terrain vehicle and, therefore, any evidence obtained after
the handcuffing must be suppressed.
Because the evidence of Akkerman’s intoxication was properly admitted,
we affirm.

F A C T S

At
3:15 a.m. on a Sunday morning, a Moose Lake police officer observed two
all-terrain vehicles (“ATVs”) driving on a public road without illuminated
headlights. Based on these observations,
the officer thought that “perhaps they were stolen vehicles.” The officer then learned from dispatch that a
woman who lived near a local ATV dealer had reported hearing “four-wheelers and
thought it sounded suspicious at that hour of the morning.” Relying on the report and his own suspicions,
this officer believed that there was “a good possibility these are stolen and
they’re coming from the dealership.”

The
officer activated his emergency lights and pulled over next to the ATVs. The order of events during the stop is
unclear. At some point during the stop,
the officer placed Akkerman in handcuffs because he “strongly suspected” that
the ATVs were stolen. After Akkerman was
in handcuffs, the officer determined that the ATVs were not stolen. Also, at some point during the stop, the
officer observed signs that Akkerman was intoxicated.

Akkerman
failed a preliminary breath test and he was arrested. At the police station, Akkerman took an
Intoxilyzer test that indicated he had an alcohol concentration of about
0.17. Akkerman’s driver’s license was
revoked under the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 169A.52, subd. 4(a) (2004),
and Akkerman petitioned for judicial review.
Following a hearing, the district court sustained the license
revocation. In this appeal, Akkerman
argues that the evidence obtained after the handcuffing should have been
suppressed.

D E C I S I O N

The
state and federal constitutions protect against unreasonable searches and
seizures. U.S. Const. amends. IV, XIV; Minn. Const. art. I, § 10. A brief, investigatory stop is reasonable if
a police officer knows of specific and articulable facts that objectively
support a suspicion of criminal activity.
State v. Anderson,
683 N.W.2d 818, 822-23 (Minn. 2004). We review a district court’s findings of
facts for clear error. State v. Blom, 682 N.W.2d 578, 616 (Minn. 2004). As
applied to specific facts, the reasonableness of a seizure presents a question
of law, which we review de novo. State v. Burbach, 706 N.W.2d 484, 487 (Minn. 2005).

Akkerman
has not challenged the district court’s determination that the police officer
observed Akkerman driving an ATV without its headlights illuminated along a
public road in violation of Minn. Stat. § 84.928, subds. 1(a), 2(3) (Supp.
2005). Thus, it is undisputed on appeal
that the officer properly stopped Akkerman’s ATV. The issue is whether the officer’s subsequent
handcuffing of Akkerman was an unreasonable seizure that makes the intoxication
evidence inadmissible because it is the product of an illegal arrest. See
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488, 83 S. Ct. 407, 417
(1963) (holding that evidence discovered as result of exploiting previous
illegality is inadmissible).

The
ATV violations alone were insufficient to justify a custodial arrest. See
State v. Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d 353, 363 (Minn.
2004) (holding that some crimes, such as traffic violations, are so minor that
custodial arrest cannot be justified); see
also Minn. R. Crim. P. 6.01, subd. 1(1)(a) (limiting warrantless arrests
for misdemeanors). Therefore, the ATV
violations, viewed in isolation, did not permit the officer to handcuff
Akkerman as part of an arrest.

Handcuffing a suspect, however, does
not by itself transform an investigatory stop into an arrest. SeeState v. Walsh, 495 N.W.2d 602, 605 (Minn. 1993) (holding
that handcuffed suspect was not under arrest).
Handcuffing qualifies as an intrusion that exceeds the scope of an
ordinary investigatory stop. Typically,
forced movements are not justified during an investigative stop unless necessary
for “reasons of safety and security.” Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 504, 103 S. Ct.
1319, 1328 (1983) (plurality opinion). Minnesota courts have
approved handcuffing and similar intrusions during investigatory stops only
when additional reasons existed to support an officer’s belief that the suspect
presented a threat. See Walsh, 495 N.W.2d at 605 (permitting handcuffing of suspect
found at murder scene); State v. Moffatt,
450 N.W.2d 116, 119-20 (Minn. 1990)
(permitting sixty-one-minute detention of suspects driving from scene of
burglary); State v. Nading, 320
N.W.2d 82, 84 (Minn. 1982) (permitting
burglary suspects, who were believed to possess handguns, to be ordered to lie
on ground).

Regardless
of whether a custodial arrest was justified, we conclude that the officer was justified in handcuffing Akkerman. The officer testified that he was working
alone, that it was late at night, and that he did not know Akkerman. Under Askerooth,
these factors by themselves are insufficient to support additional detention
during an investigatory stop. 681 N.W.2d
at 368-69. But other factors,
substantiated in the record, objectively support the officer’s action. First, the officer had stopped two ATV
drivers and was outnumbered. Second,
because Akkerman and his companion were both driving ATVs, neither could be
safely confined within his own vehicle.
Third, the police had received a phone call complaining about the ATV
drivers. The phone call did not provide
evidence that the ATVs had been stolen, but it did give the officer an
additional reason for heightened awareness about his safety. Fourth, the record indicates that the officer
observed signs of intoxication before
handcuffing Akkerman. We therefore
conclude that under the circumstances the handcuffing was justified by reasons
of safety and security. Thus, the
officer did not conduct an illegal search.

In
addition, we note that regardless of whether Akkerman was properly handcuffed,
the evidence of Akkerman’s intoxication was admissible. In general, evidence is inadmissible if it is
found as a result of an illegal search or seizure. State
v. Harris, 590 N.W.2d 90, 97 (Minn. 1999). But if the evidence would have been
inevitably discovered, the evidence need not be excluded. In re
Welfare of J.W.K., 583 N.W.2d 752, 756 (Minn.
1998). Under the circumstances, the
officer undoubtedly would have checked for intoxication at some point during
the stop. The officer would have observed
in the course of a reasonable investigatory detention that Akkerman was heavily
intoxicated and had bloodshot eyes. Because
Akkerman’s intoxication would have been inevitably discovered, it was properly
admitted as evidence of Akkerman’s impaired driving.

Affirmed.

* Retired judge of the
district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by
appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.